Pitchfork media, why all the hate?

I think the main reason people around here dislike pitchfork is that they are vocal about their distaste for pearl jam. Also, they're major pricks most of the time. People tend to be put off by their snobbery.

Aside from the pricky-ness, though, they're a great source for finding new bands.

People need to learn to take what they say with a grain of salt.

i think the original intent of the site was to bring exposure to independant acts and not neccessarily be another "rollingstone" or "blender". Calling them indie snobs is unfair simply because the mainstream is not their intent. Point being that if you are not into independant music don't look to pitchfork for the always glowing reviews of mainstream bands that can easily be found in mainstream magazines or websites.

Everyone on every board everywhere loathes that site, and thats the way Pitchfork wants it. Snobby, snarky reviews, elitist bullshit, they love it, and believe it or not the fact that people have that attitude about it probably drives traffic there.

That said, once in awhile they get it right, often they get it wrong, just like any other media outlet.

As far as Pearl Jam is concerned, the fact of the matter is, PJ is in a shitty position when it comes to outlets like Pitchfork. PJ is a very independent minded band, on a major label, who have sold shitloads of records and were at the forefront of a scene that some people are still tired of. That results in people like the Pitchfork writers not really knowing what to do with them. And if you read the reviews and not just look at the scores, they rarely pan the records, they just don't love them the way we do, they clearly have some modicum of respect for PJ, which I think is all that really matters.

And in closing whatever godawful garbage they are pimping this week probably sucks, and in the end, and this is my favorite part, it is just as disposable as the "popular" stuff that they shit on every day. Because no one will care in a few years, especially pitchfork, just like no one cares about the bands they were felating 2-3 years ago.

sadprofessor wrote:

And in closing whatever godawful garbage they are pimping this week probably sucks

you mean like...Animal Collective? though damnit, I will give Strawberry Jam a listen, anybody who likes Here Comes the Indian needs their head examined.

hopethatuchoke wrote:

You didn't get the memo when you signed up for the message pit? Anyone who expresses an opinion other than "OMG the new PJ album is like amazing!!" is branded a fucking asshole by a core group of posters here. So if anyone reading this owns a publishing company or does anything that has to do with music, make sure to give Pearl Jam a 10/10 on everything or else the "Jamily" will show up on your front lawn with burning crosses and pitchforks.

well said.

pjoasisrule wrote:

Here is a list of bands that are amazing but have been bashed by this steaming turd known as Pitchfork

Jet

Their review for "Shine On"...one of the best, most creative reviews I've ever read:

It equated the album to a monkey drinking it's own piss and had a video of the act as a visual aide. Loved it.

Afterwards I went to two Jet shows in one week and rocked my little ass off.

I've got no issues with Pitchfork; it's just a source of information. I'm not a musical-follower so I don't let their or anyone else's opinions guide my music habits.

Cheguevara6 wrote:

2 to 3 years ago pitchfork raved about arctic monkeys, arcade fire, clap your hands say yeah, broken social scene, interpol. And those bands arent popular are they?

They know their stuff. Anyone who says differently is crazy.

This is true but the mainstream press covered those bands too... and I just checked, they never gave Artic Monkeys anything higher than a 7.4

The kinds of bands I was referring to are bands like Deerhunter, who no one anywhere really cares about that much, yet they have like a weekly news item. The bands that ONLY Pitchfork covers. My favorite example is the Unicorns from a few years back. Who the fuck are the Unicorns? Search them and you will get 3 pages of responses on the site.

They do get it right sometimes, no doubt about that, but I often get the impression they are trying so hard to be first to cover the "next big thing" that they will devote absolutely retarted amounts of attention to utterly unimportant (and really not good) shit.

To me wasting valuable space on really obscure shit does nothing but make people see the site as even more elitist and oftentimes downright stupid. They could invest that energy doing more reviews, more editorial type things etc. Stuff that more than 50 people on the planet might actually give a damn about. But personally, what annoys me (and I read the site every day, I have the RSS feed on my homepage) is the constant drive to cover the most obscure shit imaginable, not because its good, but just for the sake of covering it.